Township of Medicine's zoning board of adjustment regular meeting of June 17th, 2025 is now in session. Adequate notice of this meeting as required by the Open Public Meetings Act of 1975 has been provided by the annual notice published in the Home News and Tribune on December 13th, 2024. Has been posted in the main
lobby. Can I get order please? Please take your conversations out of the chamber. Thank you. Adequate notice of this meeting as required by the Open Public Meetings Act in 1975 has been provided by the annual notice published in Home News and Tribune on December 13, 2024 as imposed
in the main lobby of the municipal complex on December 18th, 2024. Please join me in the pledge allegiance to the flag to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God,
indivisible. I'm secretary. Roll call, please. Miss Shaw here. Mr. Aayat here. Mr. Johnny here. Mr. Chabra here. Mr. Cerrito here. Mr. Patel here. Mr. Sada
here. Vice Chair Gorman here. And chairman Gumba here. Madam Secretary, minutes for consideration. We have minutes of May 20th, 2025 for approval. What's the board's pleasure? Motion to approve. Second. Motion made by Vice Chairman
Gorman. Second by Mr. Sadata. Roll call, please. Mr. Chabra, yes to the motion. Mr. Cerrito, yes to the motion. Mr. Johnny, yes in motion. Mr. Patel, yes to the motion. Mr. Sada, yes to the motion. Mr. Chair Gorman, yes on the motion. And
Chairman Gumba, yes on the motion. Madam Secretary, first resol resolution for adoption. D34 2024 Outback State House of Florida for approval. What's the board's pleasure? Motion to approve. Second. Motion made by Vice Chairman Gorman. Second by Mr. Sedata. Roll call,
please. Mr. Chabra, yes to the motion. Mr. Cerrito, yes on the motion. Mr. Johnny, yes in motion. Mr. Patel, yes on the motion. Mr. Sada, yes to the motion. And Vice Chair Gorman, yes on a motion. Next resolution, please. The 15, 2025,
Michelle Campbell for approval. What's the board's pleasure? Motion to approve. Second. Motion made by Vice Chairman Gorman. Seconded by Mr. Patel. Roll call, please. Mr. Chabra, yes to the motion. Mr. Johnny, yes in motion. Mr. Patel, yes on the motion, Mr. Sadha. Yes
to the motion. Thank you. Okay. Uh, we have three announcements for this evening. Case Z27. Oh, excuse me, pardon me. KZ32 2024 Sachin Patel of 167 Morris Avenue uh will not be heard this evening. They
have requested to carry till August 26, 2025 with no renotice required. If you received a notice for this case or you're here for this case Z3220 2022 Sachin Patel 167 Morris Avenue. It will not be heard this evening. will be heard
on April 26, 2025 at 700 p.m. here in council chambers. KZ8 2025 Sacred Foundation at 3880 Park Avenue has requested to carry till August 26, 2025 with no renotice required. If you're
here for this case, Z82025 Sacred Foundation at 3880 Park Avenue. It will not be heard this evening. will be heard on August 26, 2025 at 700 p.m. here in council chambers. Case Z5, 2025, Abashek Bartage at 8
fielding place will be carried till July 29th, 2025 with a meeting beginning at 700 p.m. here in council chambers. If you're here for this case, um Z5 2025 at 8 Fielding Place, it will not be heard
this evening. will be heard on July 29th, 2025 at 7 p.m. here in council chambers. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. This is a regular meeting of the Township of Edison zoning board of adjustment. The board is composed of Edison Township residents appointed by municipal council
who volunteer their time and service to the board. The misp land use law requires a member successfully complete a land use training course ministered by the New Jersey Department of Community Affairs. The board also holds in-house training conducted by our board professionals. The zoning board abides by the provisions of the Misville land
use law in addition to our board's bylaws. The zoning board is a quasi judicial land use board which differs from the township planning board. Under the Misfit land use law, board members are required to be impartial and not allowed to discuss any case prior to being considered at a hearing. All applicants will have the opportunity to
present their case before the board along with the opportunity for board members and board professionals to question the applicant and their witnesses. At the conclusion of the applicant's presentation of their case, the case will open to the public. Residents within 200 feet of subject property will be heard, followed by residents from outside of 200 ft. All
residents will be sworn in. They'll provide their name and address. They'll be given six minutes to comment on the application being considered without the opportunity for a rebuttal. Residents may ask questions of the applicant, the applicant's professionals, and board professionals. The board requests that these questions are asked prior to any commentary being made on the
application. Once commentary begins, the resident's timer will begin. The applicant would be allowed for the opportunity for cross-examination of their witnesses. Under the law, the chair is allowed to stop any commentary which is repetitive or an attempt to filibuster the board. Further, the chair is allowed to stop any commentary that
is irrelevant to the case or prohibited from the board's consideration. Once the public portion is closed, all public comments are ended unless new testimony is presented by the applicant. Following the closure of the public portion, the applicant will have the right of summation on their application. Following summation, the case will go to
the board for a decision. This procedure has been followed by the board and similar to the procedure to follow procedures followed by boards of adjustments statewide. The miss land use law requires the board to engage in a balancing act and is not required to strictly apply township ordinances, zoning plan or master plan. As a board
of adjustment, variances are granted when appropriately necessary following all legal considerations. As has been the case with prior boards, this board will see where we're at if we are still in session around 10:30 p.m. I ask that all applicants, professionals, and residents show respect to each other and
be civil throughout all proceedings. I ask that you withhold applause, booing, or interrupting anyone while they are speaking. The chair will not tolerate any outbursts by applicants, professionals, or the public. Further, since most most cases are being recorded by a court reporter, I ask that speakers
do not speak over one another. Madam Secretary, first case on the agenda, please. Case number Z27 2024, 1970 Edison LLC at 1970 Lincoln Highway for summation and vote only.
Good evening, Mr. Saxs. Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. Uh Lawrence Saxs on behalf of the applicant 1970 uh Route 20 1970 Edison LLC. Uh as the board will recall, we were last here on May 20th and we presented all of our
testimony at that time. Uh we also uh went to the public portion. Uh there were no uh no individuals at the public portion. Uh you only had five members that evening. So uh to exercise caution, we decided to defer uh summation and
vote for this evening. And that's why we're back here. Uh members of the board. Um, just briefly, I just uh want to talk about some of the testimony that was uh aduced at the hearing and and really what this project is all about. Uh, as many of you are familiar, this property is almost right across the
street from the uh entrance to uh the municipal building, municipal complex. It's at 1970 Route 27. It's next door to the McDonald's. Uh, it had been a medical arts building. There had been a dental office in there for a number of years. It's a one-story building uh with
a fairly uh dilapidated and undelineated parking lot. Uh what my client is proposing to do is to add a second story addition uh to the property and also a uh an addition to the first and second floor at the rear. Uh there was
testimony at the hearing that uh my client operates a wholesale jewelry business. Uh this space will be utilized specifically uh for office space uh for that business. Uh there'll be a small showroom. Um and that's essentially what
will be inside the building. It will be a single tenant building. Uh there'll be no other users in that building. Uh there was testimony that uh there is no retail traffic. Uh this is not your retail jewelry store. They actually supply uh retail jewelry stores. So the
only customers who come according to the testimony of Mr. Mansuri would be owners of jewelry stores or other uh individuals involved in jewelry sales. Uh the appointments are primarily by appointment only. So there'll be absolutely no retail traffic at this
site. Uh in it the hours of operation would be from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Uh there was testimony that they have a total of six employees. Uh however, they have two shifts and that usually there'd be three employees there at any particular time. Uh deliveries would be
by FedEx truck. Uh the trash that would be generated is your normal office trash. There was some discussion with your board professionals about a refu enclosure and I believe we agreed uh to provide that and any uh carting of the refu will be by private hauler and
certainly will be off hours. Um the uh in terms of the exterior improvements made to the site, we're going to delineate that parking lot. There was testimony from Mr. Dupont as to that. Uh we're going to provide new lighting, uh new landscaping. Uh we're
also going to provide three electric vehicle charging stations. Um there's a total of 10 spaces, but by putting the three EV charging stations, we get a three uh space credit. 13 spaces are required and we're providing 13 spaces under the ordinance. Uh there was a
letter from Mcdana Ray and Associates. Uh they are our traffic engineer and they uh responded in their traffic report to your staff uh that there's minimal traffic impact on this site and that uh in their opinion uh there's no circulation or traffic issues. Um we are
seeking a number of a number of bulk variances and also an F variance. Uh the use is permitted in the zone. So we don't require a D1 use variance. Uh but we do require an F variance. Mr. Dupont testified at length as to that. Uh and
and really the F variance is triggered by the fact that we're putting a second level on this building. Um as you as you are aware and I think Mr. Big Nell alluded to it in his report. Uh the standard uh in granting an F a D4 or F
variance is is entirely different than granting a use variance. We don't have to demonstrate the special reasons. Uh we just really have to show under the Coventry Square case uh that the site can accommodate the use uh that's being proposed. And uh just to talk about a
few of those facts. Uh first of all, we we would be creating less traffic on this site if versus a medical office use. we wouldn't even have enough parking on this site for a medical office use. So, we're really generating less traffic uh than what had been there previously. We're providing enough
parking uh we don't require a parking variance. Um refuge enclosure is being provided. We also agreed to put new fencing at the rear of the property. Uh and also there is an adjacent commercial property and I
know you're all familiar with Route 27. A lot of the houses that were there back in the n built in the 1950s uh have really transformed into office uses or retail uses uh over the years along Route 27. Um one of the suggestions of Mr. Carly and of Mr. Big Nell is to have
a cross access easement between the two properties uh to uh really to for safety purposes and to satisfy any concerns that the DOT might have. And we've agreed to do that and we already have that in principle with the property owner. Um there were some bulk variances
that we require. Um the bulk of them, no pun intended, were pre-existing non-conforming uses based on the size of the site. Uh we do need a lot coverage. Uh as Mr. Dupont testified, the lot cover we don't comply with lot coverage now. Yes, we are aggravating it
slightly. Uh but that's because we're obviously redoing this parking lot to provide adequate parking in this commercial zone. So, with that said, uh I really don't have much more to add. Um certainly if
the board is inclined to say, "Can you reduce the footprint a little bit on this building?" We could do that. Um we we'd prefer not to. Uh but we did look that we could reduce the second floor uh slightly, which would reduce the F variance relief that we're seeking. Uh
that could impinge upon our operations, but we could probably live with that. uh but you know certainly I don't think reducing the F which really is triggered as a result of putting this second level in so therefore we're not increasing the you know necessarily aggravating the footprint that's there already uh but
certainly if the board would like to see a slight reduction in the footprint we could accomplish that on the second floor we could take some some room off there uh we discussed possibly a 3% reduction uh which would certainly reduce the F on this property as well
but Again, as you're aware, it's a single tenant user. It's owner operated. Uh it's not going to have a tremendous amount of activity. And I think as Mr. Dupont testified in his planning testimony, I know he's here this testified, he compared some of the FS
that are over there already. And we're not out of character or out of whack with with the FS that are existing 7, particularly with these old houses that have now become offices and uh and retail sites. Mr. Chairman, with that
said, I'd request that you uh vote favorably on this. And again, if there's a request of any reduction, we certainly could entertain that. Great. Thank you, Mr. Sex. I'll go to the board. Mr. Chairman, vice chairman, would you
reduce it to the 3% F? I don't know if I can accomplish the three. I think the F wouldn't go down to the same amount, but if we reduce the footprint by three, we could even go up to 5%. that would that would be a reduction in in your F.
Mr. Chairman, vice chairman, like to make a motion to approve this application based on meeting the positive and ne negative criteria. There was no opposition from the residents and then uh it meets all the and based on the conditions that it's going to
meet the Ank panel reports and Delaware engineering Delaware and Raritan Engineering reports. The hours of operation are 9 9:00 a.m. to 6 p.m. There's no retail there. You'll install a new fencing in
the in the back and also you'll um obtain the easement with the property next door and also you reduce the F but we reduce the footprint footprint by by three 3% and that will reduce the F
consequently. Okay. Reduce footprint 5%. Like 3% maybe we could agree on 3% 3%. Thank you. Okay. Okay. And that's it. Okay. I would also just add that uh revised plans will be submitted. Yes. To the zoning office. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Okay. Motion's been
made. Second. Second. Motion made by Vice Chairman of Gorman. Second by Mr. Sedata. Roll call, please. Mr. Chabra, yes to the motion. Mr. Cerrito, yes on the motion. Mr. Johnny, yes in the motion. Mr. Patel, yes on the motion. Mr. Sadha, yes to the motion. Vice Chair
Gorman, yes on the motion. And chairman Gumba? Yes on the motion. Get down approval. Congratulations. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, members of the board. Madam Secretary, next case on the agenda, please. Case number Z12, 2025, Soukinder Singh at 46 foyer for a
summation and vote only. Good evening. Uh Stephen Trip uh from the firm of Will Coleman and Spitzer on behalf of the applicant. Uh this case also was heard last month. There were five board members. So decision was made to carry it and supply transcripts so we
could have a full compliment. Um this this is an existing uh lot 10,000 square foot in the RB zone. um 75 by 100 and 7500 square feet are
required. What is proposed are two uh 50 by 100 or 5,000 square foot lots. Um we also needed additional variances uh with regard to F impervious coverage and setback uh to the proposed uh porch not
to the house itself. So the testimony uh I believe we satisfied the statutory criteria. We demonstrated that what we're proposing here would fit in well with the neighborhood. Uh within 200 ft 2/3 of the properties uh don't conform as to width and lot area and within 300
ft nearly 3/4. Um so the testimony uh was that the relief really allows an appropriate sized house. The houses fit. I mean, you've the sidey yards comply, the rear yards comply, and the front yard of the house itself complies and is
significantly farther back than the existing uh single family house that's there now. The only uh encroachment is a small porch and it's still farther back than the entire structure that's there now. Um, and that's on both of both of
the houses. Um, significantly, there was no one from uh the neighborhood uh or anyone at all who objected. The property owner to the rear testified that he had no issue with it and actually commented that he thought it would fit in with the
neighborhood. Um, and I' I've been in Edison a long time and when neighbors don't like an application, they're not shy about it. And we really had I only the only comments were in support. Um there were a few technical issues if the
board is is inclined to address uh to approve this application. Um there's a couple of issues. Um one was uh that I when I went back through the transcript was whether or not we would put a fence in the rear and I think we indicated that we would if the board would like to
see a fence separating our properties from the property to the rear. The other question that came up was the technical RSIS requirement of two and a half spaces. We have two spaces, which is the garage and the driveway. We indicated we
could widen the driveway. Uh but that would require um going over the 40% imperous coverage and we preferred not to and there was a comment from the engineer that the um RSIS allows you to um round down and providing an extra
what would be equivalent of a half a space. It's not worth additional impervious coverage. And so we would offer to do it if if the board wanted the driveway widen, but we would prefer not to do it. we think it makes more sense to leave the impervious the way it
is. Those were the only open issues I saw. Other than that, I think we agreed to satisfy everything in the professionals reports and um we addressed uh the statutory criteria. I think there are a number of variances. We acknowledge that, but the houses do
fit and uh will be appropriate and will allow for a a proper um appropriate house to be uh constructed. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Trip. And I'll go to the board. Mr. Chairman, Vice Chairman, I'd like to
make a motion to approve this application based on meeting the positive and negative criteria. Also, the uh the neighbors supported the project and also the engineer did analysis that the car will meet the characteristics of
the neighborhood. You'll the condition is you'll put a new fence in the back and that's it. Second. Second. Motion made by Vice Chairman Gorman, second by Mr. Sadd. Roll call, please.
Mr. Chabra, yes to the motion. Mr. Certo, yes on the motion. Mr. Johnny, yes in the motion. Mr. Patel, yes on the motion. Mr. Sada, yes to the motion. Vice Chair Gorman, yes on the motion. And chairman Kumba? Yes on the motion. You ask approval. Congratulations. Thank
you very much. Thank you, sir. I'm sorry. The case has been closed. The public portion has been closed, sir. In the last hearing, Madam Secretary, uh, next case on the agenda, please. Case number Z10 2025,
Rita Meta at 14 out of bounds for summation and vote only. Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. Uh my name is Bernard Shy with the firm of Convian Shy representing the applicant in this matter. Uh it's here for a vote and
summation. Uh essentially uh we are seeking to do a relatively small expansion of an existing single family home uh in order to have some more living space uh and a twocar garage. Uh we are uh looking to
expand the bedroom the existing bedroom and the kitchen. Uh this is a uh a piece of property that's 42,550 square ft uh in excess of the required lot size. Uh the application satisfies
all the setback requirements uh some of them significantly. Uh the uh variances in question uh the floor area ratio variance it exists at 20.84%.
Uh we're seeking to increase it to 23.2% uh something uh uh less than 3% total. Uh the uh once again as Mr. Saxs so eloquently
stated uh this is not a special reasons devariance. Uh all we need to show is that the site can accommodate the proposed use. Uh frankly uh since all the setback requirements are satisfied and the lot size requirement is
satisfied. Uh it would appear that this increase is dimminimous as was testified by our planner. Uh as far as the lot coverage by building variance, we're proposing 12%. Uh in 1997,
uh when we were before this board, uh we were approved for 14.44%. So we're actually reducing uh the lot coverage by building uh from what was already approved. Uh lot coverage all impervious. Uh we were
approved at 30.7%. Uh we're proposing an increase to 38.5% uh once again a relatively insignificant uh uh increase for a lot this size. Uh I
believe that uh the uh testimony uh provided the necessary proofs for the board to grant the variance. Uh there was no one uh in opposition uh from the neighborhood or from anywhere with regard to this
application. Uh the house will be nicel lookinging. Uh it already is and it'll get nicer and uh the family needs a little bit more room and that's uh the basis for the application. Okay. Thank you very much. We'll go to
the board. Mr. Chairman, vice chairman. I'd like to make a motion to approve this application. Based on the variations requested are dimminimous. It'll uh the aesthetics in the neighborhood remain the same. There was no opposition and
there were several residents that uh supported the application. Second motion made by Vice Chairman O' Gorman, second by Mr. Chabra. Uh roll call, please. Mr. Chabra, yes to the motion. Mr. Cerrito, yes on the motion.
Mr. Johnny, yes in the motion. Mr. Patel, yes to the Mr. Sadda, yes to the mush. Vice Chair Gorman, yes on a motion. And Chairman Gumba, yes on the motion. Thank you very much. Congratulations, chair. All right, madam secretary. Next case on
the agenda, please. Case number Z14, 2025, Hanife Bal of 8 Charles Street. Applicant is seeking bulk variances to construct a new single family dwelling. The following standards have not been met. Minimum front yard setback required is 25 ft. Proposed is
13.10 ft. And minimum sideyard required is 6 feet. Proposed is 3.46 feet. And minimum combined yard setback required as 18 ft proposed is 13.7 ft. Affected property is located in the RB zone. Designated as block number 546.03,
lot number 70.01 on the Edison Township tax map. All noticing paperwork is in order. Good evening. Good evening. Uh, good evening. My name is Andrew Pad Buresnak. I'm the architect on this project.
U sir, would you raise your right hand and pull that microphone closer to you so we could hear you? Pull that microphone closer. Yes, raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear or affirm to tell the whole truth, nothing but the truth to help you God? Yes, I do. And again, could you state your name? Andrew
what? My name is Andrew Pod Berezniaak. E O D B E R E Z N I A K. I'm I'm a licensed architect state of New Jersey. Okay. Um and you're going to be testifying on behalf of the I will be
testifying on behalf of the Sir, if you could please provide the board with the uh benefit of your background qualifications. Uh I'm I'm a licensed architect since 1988. I I went to New Jersey School of Architecture and NGIT. Graduated in ' 85. Four years later, I
received my license and since 1989, I've been on my own practice. Um, I testified before nu numerous uh municipalities and I testified here before also. And your license or current in good standing? I'm I'm l in good standing on and in short.
I will accept you. Thank you. Are you going to are you going to also testify? Uh, if you need me to, but we also have a professional planner here that's going to test. So, I'm not Should I swear him in? Swear. Are you the applicant? Yes. Okay. So, we're going to swear you in just in case we have
questions from you. Raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear or affirm to tell the whole truth, nothing but the truth to help you? Yes, I do. And state your full name, please. Anal. Okay. Floor is yours. You can proceed. Okay. So I'm I'm just want to give you a little bit of history
a little bit of history on this project. Um this started roughly year year and year and two months ago. There was a little tiny house on that property. The property is at present time property is roughly 40 feet by 186 ft which is 7,445
ft. There was a small house one bedroom one bathroom. It was total was 610 square ft. There was a partial basement partial crawl space. uh my my applicant hired me to basic to do a addition to this house and increase it uh and and make it more of a livable space since
one bedroom is wasn't even renting it out. Uh we decided we we went through we did the construction documents and and we submitted the drawings as an addition to this on this project and it went I actually passed the zoning went through
the zoning and and in October 2024 passed the zoning in December 2025 went through the construction construction uh department and received permits to to basically provide a uh new addition of a
addition in the rear and a second floor. My my uh my client went went in there and decided doing demolition and then during demolition we found out that the structure there the basically the footing and foundation all crumbled in. It was not structurally sound. Uh the
front portion had no footing se the rear portion was partial footing but it was basically it wasn't it wasn't structurally sound. What happens is all the the entire foundation collapsed. So what we decided to do is basically take that exactly same house that was the
addition and the existing and basically same exactly same footprint and put a brand new house in there. We did not increase any size. We did not move it move it over. We we kept the old exactly same setback as per original original drawings that we received
permits on already. But now it triggered us into a brand new house and now all of a sudden we need a variance. So that's why we are here. Uh so as as I was saying the existing house was 610 square feet. We were adding first floor of 545 additional
square feet for total on first floor 1100 1,154 square ft. And then we put a second floor over the entire first floor which was 1100. So the entire the entire house was 2253 square ft. But there is also
existing there is an existing uh garage 25 by 20 of total of 550 square feet in the in the rear detached garage and we were keeping it. We were not touching this at all and during the new house that we proposing we will not be touching it also.
Okay. The the new house will have uh on a first floor living room, dining room, uh front cover entry, kitchen with island, open foyer, a nice family room, and a full bathroom. We have a roughly 80 square ft of deck in the rear and
then a direct entrance from the from the exterior to the basement through stairs going down. On a second floor, we have a four bedrooms, two bathrooms, open foyer, and a laundry closet. Uh now with the new house we will have a basement
which will be just finished with the full bathroom which would act as a just one big TV playroom and the mechanical room. Uh so as far as the now since we building a brand new house we all of a sudden the variance is triggered because
when it was existing non-confirming we could match we could do everything as as as the var the the zoning board passed it as an addition. So uh what we have existing and non-conforming is there
this is RB single family zone the lot the lot size supposed to be 7500 we are slightly under sight because we have a 7,445 square ft so we short of 55 square feet the lot width is the in RB zone is supposed to be 75
ft we are existing at 40.2 2 the minimum front yard setback supposed to be 25. The existing house was at 13.10 and we keeping the new house also at 13.10. So there is no there was will be no change at all if the if the if the foundation
did not collapse. Minimum one side 8t setback we have a 3.46 the other side we have 10.14 which is total we were supposed to have 18 we are at 13.7. As far as the building coverage, uh total coverage and floor area ratio, we are
complying. So we not we're not introducing any any other variances. We're not seeking anything else except what we had with the existing houses. And I'm confirming uh we will we will have a plan planner here to discuss the neighborhood,
discuss all most of the most of the properties around there within blocks. They're all under size as far as the width. They do have the depth, but the width is always an issue in this in this area. Um, as far as the finishes, we will have, you know, ashaltful single
vinyl siding with uh with the decorative stone on the bottom. Uh, some some decorative uh trim and moldings. We also have a nice box window as a as an accent point. That's that would be it.
Any questions for the architect? Mr. Sure. Mr. Charber, I have a question for the applicant. Um, so currently um there was some in there was some inconsistency here um in terms of what was provided last time. So currently the basement stands or No, no, the the basically the
entire on this once we received the permits to do the addition on the house during the demolition the all the foundation collapsed. There was nothing that could be saved. There was no footings. There was no there was no supports. So currently just a so currently right now the foundation collapsed and there is it's they're not
usable. We have to do a brand new just rubble right now. It's rubble right now. Okay. It was in such a bad shape. We had no idea that this actually the existing 610 square foot was a has a 6 ft of crawl space without no footing foundation and the rest of it had had such a bad foundation that once we once
we started touching it was just fell apart. Okay. And the new addition that was proposed originally, was it calling for a slab footing in the back or No, it it was calling actually to put a a basement addition to the existing addition to the existing basement. So,
but the front of the house was a basement behind the the rear of the house. Front of the front six first six feet at least I guess long time ago was some kind of a porch that somebody converted into living space. So, it didn't have a basement, it just had a small crawl space. Okay. So first six
feet across with crawl space then there was a basement. Correct. Okay. And then we were putting addition with the basement. Okay. Makes sense. Thank you. Okay. Okay. Any other questions for the architect? Mr. Chairman, vice chairman, can you testify that this additional meet to uh
be similar to the characteristics of the neighborhood? It it Mr. I'm sorry. Just just Mr. Fletcher is here as a planner. You have a planner here also. They can testify to that. Okay. Um so I have a question. So you're you spoke to the minimum front front yard setback
variance that that was no change from what's existing from for existing before collapse when we were planning to do the addition that that's the exactly what we keeping. Okay. And then your minimum sideyard on one side at 3.46 was that existing? That was existing. Okay. What
the only the only let me just clarify the only thing is what we did the the existing house was a little skewed and we figured this is a good time to at least keep it straight parallel to the property. So we the other one side was 3.46 the other one is 4.06 4 point something. So we decided when we we
asked for the variances at least we make the building straight. So where were you and where were you at? I need to I need to understand your setback was here. It's going to be here. Here I need some specifics. The the existing the the setbacks were we right
now what we asking for is exactly same thing where we already received approvals for the addition. We didn't change the pro the the overall dimensions of the house. We didn't change any setbacks at all. We just put it exactly the same but it had to be now brand new because the foundation
collapsed. Okay. Understood. That that that's that's my question. Okay. Thank you very much. Any other questions? Okay. Seeing none. Thank you very much. Thank you. Have a plan now. Raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear or affirm to tell the whole truth,
nothing but the truth? I help you, God. And just state your full name for the record. Thank you. That's Paul J. Fletcher. Mr. Fletcher, you've been before us uh prior. If you could just please give the board with a brief summary of your background qualifications. Yes, I'm the principal of Fletcher Engineering. I'm a licensed
professional planner in the state of New Jersey. My uh credentials are current. Um uh been a licensed planner for approximately 35 years. uh testified in front of many
boards uh throughout Middle counties. I've been in in Edison in front of the planning board and zoning board on uh numerous occasions. Okay. And your planning license is current and good standing? Yes, it is. Okay, we'll accept you. Please proceed. Thank you. Thank you.
Yes. The subject property commonly known as uh 8 Charles Street in Edison is block 546.03 tax lot 70.01 01 and as previously mentioned it's a property in the RB zone
single family residential uh that is 40 ft in width it is 86 ft deep with a area of 7445.5 square ft. Uh it had been previously
improved with a small single family house that was set back uh 13.10 ft uh from the front property line. Uh sideyard setbacks on the left of 3.46 on the right of uh 10.14.
Uh there's an existing driveway along the right side. There's an existing uh twocar garage in the to the rear of the home. It's the applicant's intention to uh maintain that existing garage uh and the driveway access uh to it.
There are a number of variances uh requested and uh essentially these are existing conditions as the architect has testified. uh we we require a variance for front yard setback where 25 is
required in the zone and 13.10 is proposed require a minimum sideyard of uh 3.46 46 proposed or 6 feet is the minimum in the RB zone. And lastly, combined total
sideyard uh 13.7 is existing and proposed. Uh 18 ft is is required. Uh before I talk about the the planning justifications, I I did bring a few
exhibits. Uh the first one is to give the ward a sort of a sense of of of the neighborhood. It's a very it's kind of a unique neighborhood this area. Uh it's just north of Oak Tree Road. U west of Wood Avenue. Uh Henry Street wraps
around, Charles Street uh goes across, and there is a lot of 40 foot uh wide lots. Mainly improved with uh uh smaller homes. However, it it's as as is most of
North Edison, uh it's slowly being redeveloped. Larger two-story families, family homes are being constructed. Uh I have here I'd like to enter as exhibit A1 uh a Google Earth map with the subject property a Charles
shown in the middle. only have four of this. Mr. Fletcher, is there a date on this Google Earth map? Um I took it off uh question. Uh it would be within the last year, year
and a half. Their their aerial photography is fairly current. Uh I uh took it offline actually uh earlier today, June 17th. One thing that uh I think
this photo highlights is the uh the front yard setbacks along Charles Street. Uh our our property is kind of in the middle of the block between the two Charles Streets uh Charles Avenue
and uh you can see that all the front yard setbacks are it our front yard is lined up with all the other homes along along Charles on that side of the street. So this particular setback is is not uncommon in this particular
neighborhood. Uh, I have a second exhibit which I'd like to have more copies of this. This will be marked as A2. You can go back. We'll pass now. Oh, you need one. Absolutely. So, this exhibit is a photocopy of the
tax map, Edison tax map. The subject property is highlighted in blue. Um, and we've got the green highlighted areas and some orange highlighted. Uh, firstly, I I I didn't highlight these, but I identified all the 40 foot wide
lots uh within the 200t area. There's a total of 29 uh actually a total of 42 properties uh within 200 feet. Uh of those 29 have
a a 40ft lot width that represents 69%. So this particular size of lot is very common in in this in this neighborhood. Uh we we visited each of those 40 foot lots uh from the street uh and we
measured the house widths to determine uh what the combined sideyard setbacks would be. Uh the highlighted uh properties in in green uh have a com a nonconforming combined sideyard. Uh that
means that uh for a 40ft lot a uh combined required side is 18 ft. Therefore the house could no be no wider than 22 ft. U all those uh lots
uh that are highlighted in green uh have homes that are wider than the 22 ft. Uh some as wide as uh in excess of 30 ft. So the combined setback ranged from uh
uh 16 uh down to a minimum of uh 8.4 ft. We identified a several lots that were very similar to ours with regard to side setback, single yard side setback. Uh they're highlighted in orange. Uh one is
number 10 Charles Street. The other is 24 Henry Street. Both of those have almost identical sideyard setbacks of about 3 and 1/2 ft. So again, this shows that uh what the
existing condition for our home and our proposed condition is is not certainly not inconsistent with the existing neighborhood pattern of development. I believe that the board has the opportunity to approve this
uh based on both the C1 and the C2 criteria for bulk variances. With regards to the C1, which is a hardship, uh clearly uh this is an undersized lot. Uh
it's it's it's constraining when it comes to uh putting a home on it uh to uh to reconstruct the uh existing house that was 26 1/2 ft wide.
It it it needs a combined sideyard setback uh to increase the the sideyard uh would eliminate the possibility of the driveway accessing the uh
garage in the rear. Um, with regards to the C2 criteria, I I can see that the uh I believe that the uh advantages uh significantly uh outweigh any detriments. the
fact that we're taking a very small uh functionally obsolete home uh replacing it with a a modern aesthetically pleasing uh uh
home that's uh up to modern standards, up to current code requirements. Uh it will be an asset to the uh neighborhood. will be I believe an improvement to uh to the streetscape uh and to the adjoining properties. Um I
see no uh no significant uh detriment uh to the uh zone plan or the master plan. Uh since these these proposed conditions are essentially existing conditions for the existing home. Uh, and I see no uh
detriment to the public good. Uh, only a positive effect for a new home being constructed. Based on those uh um opinions, I would suggest the board has the um ability to approve this uh
has the justification to approve this application cease to do so. That is the case. Thank you very much, Mr. Fletcher. Does the board have any questions? Mr. Fletcher. Mr. Chairman. Vice Chairman. Mr.
Fletcher, you going to testify that this uh new single family home will meet the characteristics of the neighborhood? It will. Thank you. Any other questions, Mr. Fger? Seeing none. Okay. Uh Mr. P, do you have
anything to add? No. Okay. All right. So, uh, we will now go out to the public. Anyone within 200 feet of subject site wanting to be heard, if you were within 200 feet of subject site, you received the notice via certified mail. Anyone outside of 200 ft of subject site
want to be heard? Ma'am, ma'am, would you would you raise your right hand? Do you solemnly swear or affirm to tell the whole truth, nothing but the truth? Help you God? Yes. If you state your full name for the record and provide your address, please. Elizabeth Telkey, 15 Midwood Avenue, Edison, New
Jersey, 08820. I've been a resident there for approximately almost 35 years. I live around the block about six houses down from where they want to do this new construction. I do Can I ask some questions first before I give my We'd
actually prefer that. So, if you ask if you ask if you ask your questions, your questions are are not uh are not towards my time. Absolutely. You got it. Okay. Um I just want to get it verified. You said that there's going to be a walk out from the basement.
Sir, sorry. You're going to have to be on microphone to respond. Correct. There will be walk out in the basement and we are Okay. There's going to be a walk out from the basement. Um how much are you increasing the basement footprint from what it was? We are
keeping exactly same footprint as when we ask for a permit and we received the permits with the addition. We we're not enlarging the house at all from the house that already was approved by the zoning and already was approved by construction department and we already had the permits. So you
said because originally the basement I have it on my phone I'm sorry was 598 square feet was a around 600 square feet but that wasn't full basement. The first six feet was not even a basement. Okay. But there was a basement down there cuz I've been in there before. Yes, there was a basement there. It was not just a
crawl space. Correct. I was in the original owner's um basement there years ago. To clarify, the first six feet when you're looking from the street, I guess at one point was a some porch that they enclosed it and that had a crawl space and been behind the six feet rest of it was a basement. It wasn't full basement
under the entire house. Okay. And can you give me the um dimensions of the house? I believe you said it was going to be 1154 square ft, but what is the width and the depth of the house going to be? The width is going to be the width is going to be 26
26.5 ft, which is the existing of the existing original house busting. We didn't make it any wider. We didn't make it any wider when we received the permits for the for the for the addition. The depth was the existing house was at 23 feet and now uh on one
side on one side we have a 41 ft the other side we have a 44.4. Okay. And the garage is going to remain where it's at. The garage you mean where is it? Where it is? We actually not touching the garage. And is there going to be plumbing put down in that basement? There will be a bathroom in
that basement. Correct. Okay. And no other plumbing just for a bathroom. just for a bathroom. Okay, thank you. I think that's all the questions I have for you. Um, I'm not sure if you bored I have never been up
here before, so please bear with me. Um, I've lived in that neighborhood for 35 plus years. Neighbors on either side of me and across the street are original owners. Um, that area on the corner of like Wood Avenue and Oak Tree Road years
ago was a goat farm and a pear tree farm. That's what it was. That's why there's all these small like bungalow air kind of homes there. Small twobedrooms close to the street. I'm not sure if they're aware and nobody has brought up. I think it's between I could not find
because I just found out this was happening on Sunday. So I please forgive me for not being able to get the original maps. somewhere on Charles Street between I guess at 68 and 10 coming across the
street from Charles Street uphill there is an underground stream that goes I kind of brought one map I don't know if I can show it to you um on our side of Midwood Avenue those lots are about
100 ft deep and it's right on the other side of the fence So the people um around us on Henry Street because it goes in a horseshoe. So that's created a lot of water problems on our side of Midwood because also where they're building this house where it is is
uphill from all of us. And anytime on Henry Street or that area where they um expanded, Six Charles Street, we've had more flooding on our side of the street, including in our basements because of the water problems there. That might be one of the reasons that their basement
there crumbled. Um, I'm also concerned with them overbuilding the footprint there that it's taking up and what is it called? Impervious land because there's a lot of land back there for the water and the trees. And
if we're taking that away, it will be a detriment to me and my neighbors on Midwood that have been battling these water problems since we've started to um try to improve what North Edison looks like with these bigger houses. Um,
also one of my concerns, another one is that we're going to have a basement there with plumbing with a walk out. This house, if you look at the listings from even this summer on it, it was a rental until August 2024. It needed to be vacated at that point. The fact that
you're putting a walk-in um to the basement as well as plumbing down there, it red flags to me because we've had a lot of illegal rentals in our neighborhood in these smaller homes like that. And that's a concern to me in my
neighborhood. Also, that street, Charles Street, is a major cut through so people can avoid the light on Oak Tree Road and Wood Avenue. And if we're building this house that big, I'm not sure how many people are going to be in it. With the parking area, that's a narrow street.
And it's hard enough for the buses to get through there cuz you have on the I guess that's house is facing south. So up on the corner of Henry Street and Oak Tree Road, there's an office building which parks a lot there. And on Charles Street, a lot of people unfortunately
use it as a parking lot to go down to Metro Park so they don't have to pay for parking and to avoid the traffic. The increase of the size of this concerns me because it is so big and it's going to open up Pandora's box in that
neighborhood where the houses are close together and the crowding of it and then if we allow one to build because they have started some rebuilding to ne negative detrimental effects to us others mainly
with the flooding and the water the rain waters washing down to us that, you know, we're starting to overbuild in an area that is not meant for it and that can't handle it all.
And I guess that's about it. And all oh just like lastly too it is going to be a bigger house so close to the property lines that if somebody's got to get to the sides of the house access it for repairs or anything else painting how are they to do that without going onto
the neighbors property also further concern you know I've done my research because um Tan right next to it is also for sale and he's the same owner and are we going to overbuild that one as Thank you. Thank
you very much. Anyone else outside 200 ft of subject site wanting to be heard? Can I get a motion to close the public portion? Excuse me. Motion to close the public session. Second. Motion made by Vice Chairman
Gorman. Second by Mr. Patel. Um do you have any uh wrap-up? Can I respond to couple of the issues? Uh yeah, but you can't that just so you know there cannot be a back and forth because of the public portions. No, I I do understand it. I just want to clarify. You can use a summation. You
could use your Michelle if I'm incorrect. He can't because he's not an attorney. He's not an attorney. He's not an attorney. He can't sum up. The applicant can certainly sum up. So you cannot, sir, but the applicant can sum up on his behalf. If I may add, um,
looking at the plans, uh, the lady mentioned the impervious area. Uh, we're actually decreasing the impervious area on the property because there was some paved area which we are removing. So, as far as the water absorption, uh, concerned that she mentioned that would
that wouldn't apply. She also mentioned about painting the house and not and uh, adjacent neighbors perhaps uh, infringing on their properties. Um, we have about three and a half, four feet on one side. So, getting access to that one side is not a
problem because I've been there myself. And the other side is a driveway. So, before you get to the other neighbor's house, you have a long driveway. Uh, so you're free from access there. Okay. Is that it, sir? Yes. Thank you
very much. So, now go to the board, Mr. Chairman. Vice Chairman like to make a motion to approve this application based on the testimony they uh satisfy the positive and negative criteria and that it will meet the characteristics characteristics of the
neighborhood. Second motion made by Vice Chair Gorman, second by Mr. Patel. Roll call, please. Mr. Chabra, yes to the motion. Mr. Cerrito, yes on the motion. Mr. Johnny yes on the motion
Mr. Patel yes on the motion Mr. Sadaha yes to the motion vice chair Gorman yes on the motion and chairman Gamba no on the motion this application is approved approved madam secretary any additional business come before the board this evening that'll be all for this evening
can I get a motion to adjurnn motion to adjurnn second motion made by vice chairman Gorman seconded by Mr. Sad. All in favor signify by saying I. I. I. Those nay. The eyes have it. Word stands adjourned. Thank you.